tv [untitled] August 21, 2012 4:00pm-4:30pm PDT
most of this industry is not being represented here i hope you will consider that as your issue. i hope you will this vote of until the next meeting. >> anyone else care to address the board? >> that is the second time she has left me off and allowed me to speak. i steady -- studyied and talk about it and if i have not been told greatly by my passengers, thanks for the education, you can call me a liar. this is not the mere factoid.
the city of constantinople made it a lot outlying -- outlining the actions of politicians to garner favor with the use of illegitimate cherry drivers -- terry drivers. what you're doing is so profoundly wrong that it is common sense that you should not be doing what you're trying to do. it should not retire the list. you're trying to retool the san francisco taxi industry after the new york model. those are the politicians that you are enabling. some of you are recognizable as republican in what your doing. you're buying of the people who have been involved. you should not be selling medallions at all.
if you miss second we believe you must sell -- mistakenly believe you must sell, the city must be -- must not be collecting money. if you mistakenly believe you should collect more than a nominal fee or putting your agency in the probable legal risk and moral doom. the problem with your men meant as other people have pointed out is it sounds as though your tweaking matters before rushing them through. please go now against the material on your desk. >> the public hearing is now closed. members of the board, we have two amendments. any comments? will go to the amendments. the first one if you will like -- would like to restate this. >> to amend the provisions
related to the transfer or turning in, surrendering of them existing medallions. this would not affect subsequent purchases. the revenue share would be 2 #-- two-thirds of the purchase price. the remainder goingñ the second amendment -- >> lets do the first one. comments are questions? çó>> i will start. as a lot of people have pointed out, it does follow the guidelines we said in a pilot program which did seem to work really well. i think this is a good change to
this proposal. i am hap,=p&e%ei >> all those in favor of the amendment? ayes have it. so ordered. >> this is on the eventual sale of the medallion which would happen after this initial transfer after a medallion is issued for sale when it is resold by the now-purchasing owner. it would change the transfer fee down to 20%. relatively consistent with the pilot program. chairman nolan: the ayes have it. the recommendation as amended. >> i am happy to -- i have a question and comment.
>> i will go ahead and start. and want to thank everybody who came here and spoke. is always amazing to me how much we do learn in this. i hear and i appreciate your call for us to delay a vote on this but this has been looked at, this has been under way for a long time. i feel like we do have enough information. we have looked at this enough so we can make a decision today. a couple things we talked about do stick out to me. the list is such -- is such a huge topic and i appreciate hearing from those of you who showed up today who are on the list. it is helpful to hear that point of view. i like the idea of the>& downpayment assistance from the driver's fund going toward those drivers who are on the list. i understand that we could be changing the way that we're not
giving or awarding the medallions to the people on the list with no cost but instead, we're helping people to finance the purchase of those medallions, the transfer of those medallions. it is -- is a big concern ended -- a lot of us have been thinking about that a lot. can i have someone explain to me what happens with the drivers fund? i understand with the first transfer of thexd medallion what percent goes to the driver's fund. what happens going forward? what is the future of the drivers fund? >> with the three-transfers there is 5% continues to go to the driver's fund in terms of how the fund would be used. that is something that between the mta and industry has not been determined. there was an understanding that through these various processes, people or discussing today that
there would be some -- we would arrive at some consensus on how the funds would be used. that has not happened today. the funds are accumulating. >> does the fund continued to accumulate after this first round of medallion transfers? >> every retrainnsfer. [unintelligible] >> 5% would go into the fund. >> what other -- one other i had questions on. what happens with the folks on the list is somewhat of the elephant in the room. you have talked about addressing this point at a future topic at a future time. i would urge that that time be swift because like our friend in the red sox jersey, he will have
to make a decision whether he buys a medallion which he will be eligible to do very quickly if this goes according to plan because we will follow the kehl list -- k list. if he could not wait to buy one, we should craft that quickly. under this plan he will be presented with the decision to buy rather quickly. depending on what we do with that decision that we just talked about, i, too, would favor looking at the use of the drivers fund for downpayment assistance. i suppose there is a concern that fund could be dwindled for that but it would if there was -- if it dwindled by that, it would serve the people higher on the list by virtue of going down the list for sales. that is something we should look at. that certainly is something that our friends of the credit union or financing said it would
appreciate. it should be used only for people who need the downpayment assistance. i would also say that the notions of having some group that runs it, having investment- grade accounts and having input on how the fund would be managed would be wise. turning to the bigger proposal, i favor it, which i am sure comes as no surprise. transition is difficult and we heard some of the growing pains that come with transition. this is a proposal that will move the industry forward and it is a proposal that addresses many of the concerns we have heard. not perfectly but there can never be perfect dressing of all concerns. for drivers who are on the list , this creates a plan that will expedite the opportunity to purchaseq realize the significant
financial benefit of that. i think it will also create a long-term plan for financing these medallions. thanks in large part to the folks at the credit union and the fact we have set a fixed price which in my opinion is lower than what the market price would be. for drivers who are higher on the list which is the most sensitive group i suspect here, i think i heard the chairman and the director say they will address how this is going to be looked at going forward. there have been some ideas talked about here and even if there are no such ideas, this will expedite the chance for them to get a medallion. drivers who earn the right to buy that way. some proposals had seniority on the list being the determinant and i do not think that was fair. i think folks have ordered their lives and put their names on the
list, those of the folks who should get the first opportunity to buy the medallion and that is the way the director has proposed this and i agree. for the bass group that is not here which is the citizens of tho ride cabs and people would drive the streets and people who take transit, this will create a meaningful exit strategy for older and disabled drivers who we have heard for years had no reason to give up their medallions or work unsafely driving the streets or committing waybill fraud or both. this will create a revenue source for the mta. some people decry that but there are significant financial needs of this agency including tax enforcement and other changes that will allow taxis and other cars to move about the city more
freely. to get to the point that one of the speakers made about the limited impact of service, this will allow us to have a stable system in place as we proceed to the extent where believe in the room -- reform package which is how we can assess whether we have enough taxicabs on the street how to meet the demand and how to meet the dispatch needs. i favor the proposal for all those reasons and would be happy to move at. chairman nolan: as the recession -- a second? discussion? >> i thought a lot about the idea of of postponing this. i am not convince that more time will change a lot of this. the proposal allows for areas i am concerned about.
ñiit is an important item. the drivers fund is something we have not paid nearly enough attention to and we should. i am ready to call the vote. all in favor? opposed? the ayes have it. we will come by the next items. 12 and 13. >> do we go to closed session first? >> item 12 makes -- amends sections of the san francisco transportation code and that will not read through everything that it does. item 13 amends the transportation code and establishes fines for new violations of the code regarding motor vehicles for hire. >> are you doing a presentation? >> thank you. this is the same item that was before you in june.
we heard a lot of concern from the industry over not having enough time to review and preliminary concerns. at your direction, we continue the item and went out and solicit feedback and our -- we're back with the revised item incorporating as much of that feedback as we thought appropriate. i do want to suggest one change. from what we propose based on some feedback we got subsequent and this has to do with section 1106. these are notifications we had required in terms of notifying us each month of lawsuits, claims of any kind. it was somewhat broadly written which would create a burden on both the industry and on us.
we would like to -- i would like to suggest for your consideration an amendment that would change what we have proposed to the following. this is in section 1106. which would require color schemes -- resulting in property damage or bodily injury. we have significantly narrowed what we are asking for in terms of reporting each month to those things that we feel like we need to minimally -- need minimally to do our regulatory function free otherwise staff is here to answer specific questions. item 13 is establishing fines to implement based on legislation
previously approved by the mta board. staff is here to answer any questions. chairman nolan: let's go to the overall item. an amendment has to be offered by the member of the board. would any member care to offer that amendment? is there second? ok. the discussion -- we need to the public first. we'll open it up to the public. >> [reading names] >> neither are here. emile lawrence. noit here. charles rathbone, andfá jim gillespie. >> allow me to say thank you to your staff for incorporating in
this item many suggestions that we made during the taxi town hall meetings. those hours were long but there were well spent and much appreciated, particularly the chains that director reiskin just made. we have one other concern and that is with the scheduled fiennes. on the second page to the bottom, the fine is $670 -- $617 to accepting gifts from drivers. we believe this is too broadly worded. it makes a cab company liable for frusen transactions that may occur between individuals that we may not even be aware of and that we're not party to. to illustrate the problem, consider what happened at the luxor cab office.
one of our long time drivers brought in a beautiful chocolate cake to celebrate one of our staff members' birthday. there was no solicitation of the cake, there was no quid pro quo and about a dozen people enjoyed pieces of the cake. under this section would be liable for over $600 in fines for not producing this person pose the greatest gesture. i would ask that that particular section even though we are fully in agreement with the purpose of it which is to prevent abuses of tips and gratuities, we would ask that be held in advance until your department has a chance -- selection 1105 a10. seeking clarity of the language. chairman nolan: next speaker.
barry toronto. >> followed by jim gillespie and tarik mahmoud. >> i may have -- maybe losing -- wasting my time. you're not caring to understand how the taxi industry works. i wish you would come to that taxi town hall meetings. bruce oka did go to some. i did not agree with how he conducted himself but he took the time to attend and understand what was going on. it is important that some of you besides malcolm heinicke get some of these questions answered or see for yourself how operations work. not just from one company but maybe several or to go to the
town hall meetings or thexd tacf it is existing again. that is the question that should be resolved and you should hold an agenda item. that is the one good thing that nathaniel ford did due to agree the tax exempt it became a useless and a day. regarding these items before you, there was a town hall meeting but the outrage was so terrible. the director decided information needs to get out earlier. with regarding these, there has been little outrage and the impact on the industry as great in some areas. that -- [unintelligible] without more outreach. the average cab driver comes from a country where english is fánot their first language, did not get the american education,
and understands the impact that these may have on their ability to do their business and do their job. you're making a lot of these cabdrivers' employees. there's a lot of risk involved by treating these rules and regulations. also without the enforcement. they have not hired at the investigators and they're dragging their feet on this. what is the industry gotten? i am concerned that this is moving too slowly in terms of helping the cab industry do a better job in terms of customer service. the question you first asked is how does this improve customer service? thank you. >> next speakers. ñi>> no agent is allowed to acct
or solicit gratuities. i first drove in 1969 for looks workout -- luxor cab. i never paid for favors but i want to give you a scenario. a driver has got his money and he is paying his money in and there's no benefit there or anything else. some throw a buck to the cashier to count them out. a lot of them to the gas man. he will put the gas in and check their oil when they finish. some drivers, not all through the mud driver. the most abuse is there will
have to pay extra money to get a good captain drive and i can tell you, i know some other companies, we follow that closely. we fire someone for holding someone out. half of them are assigned shifts and have far side taxis. they're not been told that to anybody. and yet not all but many of them still throughout the book when they throw -- when they're at work. this year -- this says if they're caught doing that, giving someone a dollar, there will be fined $600 and would like to see that revised. chairman nolan: thank you. next speaker? not here. >> are real 13 or 12? >> both together. the one i want to talk about is -- why is that no every driver.
it would be the long term lease where they are not necessarily checking out. that would be -- it needs to be included for safety. more than anything else. i do not care about how many people drive but if we're putting the gas and the people into the same requirement, [inaudible] chairman nolan: next speaker? >> let me talk about this 1105 a10.
this prevents any personnel from taking anything of value from the driver. and what you have heard here is ridiculous. they make it sound like it is about a chocolate cake or maybe about somebody once in awhile throwing the book to somebody. for every driver at these companies is under the gun and the vast majority of not 100% are paying people off as protection money so they do not ill treated by that company and that is typically $5 to $10 a shift. and if a driver what special treatment, get out earlier, a better cab, we are talking $10, $20 or more. this goes on hundreds of times a day. it is in the rules, it is against the rules and they're worried they might get fined for it. i hope they do. if you at their behest, she
cannot change it. there is no changing the rules here. it is a question of the fine. that fine needs to be in there becausesjñ drivers in essence ae paying gates way beyondxd what they should be. it puts other companies that are trying to do the right thing at a tremendous financial disadvantage and it is not right. this is ingrained corruption in this industry that needs to be rooted out and not to be treated with a wink and nod as it has been. i'm about to speak out of turn. what you did in that previous decision is stripped the driver's fund of about $50 million that it would otherwise have received. thank you. >> mr. kim.
>> i think these rules and regulations were very well done. they took a lot of input from the industry and it was handled quite well by staff. i support most of this. there are some issues and others i have spoken about. the process in coming up with these regulations was a good one. everyone had a chance to give their input. something was put together and discussed. i want to talk about process again. what i am upset about and i will tell you right now and there will tell the public, i will be your best advocate here to support this agency in moving the taxi industry along. it is a long time coming. despite my concerns and reservations, this is written behind closed doors. i.s. do what we go forward with this, some people have given
resignations. i suggest have it vetted through this body. put capable people in the industry there. have them vet through these things and let them have input before you put something here to be voted on very quickly. there is not much time for us to basically say we want to change this or change that. the board is going to do what is going to do. give us an opportunity to realistically look at changes whether it is wholesale changes for rules or regulations before the body looks at it. be informed and have the industry give their input. in this case here i support this legislation and i asked you in the future let the industry have forward. i think that is the biggest concern this industry has which is this lack of feeling of inclusion. thank you. chairman nolan: next speakers.
>> good afternoon. i am a taxicab driver. i saw lot of demand and changes good. we are the servant to the public. it is not the copany. -- company. we -- the problem is we do not have medallions. i need a permit or licence. some people want my right eye can give them a ride. nowñy the direction is a good direction you're headed to. cabdrivers are told to by a medallion. if they need a job, they want to have a stable income for the family. this amendment change